Bain didn’t make “people lose their jobs;” on the contrary, it created all of the jobs in Gaffney that [Rick] Perry is talking about. It would have been good if the jobs had lasted more than four years, but there was obviously a net benefit of four years’ work to the employees.

How did Romney make hundreds of millions of dollars off of companies that then went bankrupt leaving creditors holding the bag and throwing thousands of working Americans out of their jobs? Romney is such a crook.

I think that anyone who would phrase it as turning the misfortunes of others into enormous financial gain does not understand how wealth creation and capitalism works.

The key here is called "creative destruction", and part of that is redirecting resources from a less efficient use to a more efficient use.

For the most part, companies are not run (or at least should not be run) for the benefit of their employees, or even their managers, but rather their stockholders. Now, in the U.S., that turns out to include a lot of pension plans, so we do come circle some what.

So what is being suggested here is that Bain Capital was not willing to keep running companies further into the ground by not firing employees in non-economic companies, sectors, or facilities.

But, at what point does it end? How long could we afford to buy U.S. steel, when our labor costs, in a semi-skilled industry, were so much higher than the rest of the world? Why should the steel workers, auto workers, etc., keep making all that money, at the expense of the rest of us? And, now, not just at their stockholders' expense, but also at taxpayers expense. (For GM & Chrysler, all the original stockholders were wiped out, along with much of the money lent to the companies, even with security).

How did Romney make hundreds of millions of dollars off of companies that then went bankrupt leaving creditors holding the bag and throwing thousands of working Americans out of their jobs? Romney is such a crook.

It's called cutting your losses. As Bruce suggests, it's what the Demos should have done with GM.

How did Romney make all his wealth? Not by any actual wealth creation, i.e. by actually creating a product that did not previously exist, but by being a leech, like the government is. By making sure that he got his cut, his piece of the action, regardless of whether the company succeeded or failed.

The Romney crowd is promoting, as if it is a positive, that Bain had a 20 percent failure rate. In those 20 percent of the companies that crashed and burned with Bain at the helm, did Bain and Romney make sure to take those companies' money and get rich off of them regardless? You bet they did.

That was the whole point of Bain (and Romney) -- to enrich Bain, not to actually make sure that others are helped. And that is the point of Romney today -- to look to himself first, to enrich himself and his political fortunes first and foremost, and only secondarily fixing problems and doing what voters actually want.

I can not believe that stupid Republicans have selected their worst candidate!

Lets assume Romney gets himself elected. Will he be a conservative game changer?

Well, his career so far suggest he will be the most liberal Republican since Ford. But even if he tried to govern as a conservative he would be an epic failure. He is no Thatcher or Reagan born in a working class existence. Romney inherited his position and wealth and then stole the rest off of the backs of working class Americans. He will be in no position to take healthcare or safety net programs away from those who work their butts off to make this country prosper. Because of this Romney won't even dare.

But Romney won't win. The next nine months his career at Bain will be gone over with a fine-tooth comb and he will become the face of what drove our country into the ditch.

I can not believe that stupid Republicans have selected their worst candidate!

You can't believe it? Why not?

They are, indeed, rushing to coronate someone that they really do not want. And, in their idiocy of doing so, they have the gall to say that the guy with the most conservative philosophy and best governing record is the stupid one.

How did Romney make all his wealth? Not by any actual wealth creation, i.e. by actually creating a product that did not previously exist, but by being a leech, like the government is. By making sure that he got his cut, his piece of the action, regardless of whether the company succeeded or failed.

He risked his money on somebody else's idea. That what happens in the markets all the time.

Jay Retread said...

Well, his career so far suggest he will be the most liberal Republican since Ford. But even if he tried to govern as a conservative he would be an epic failure. He is no Thatcher or Reagan born in a working class existence. Romney inherited his position and wealth and then stole the rest off of the backs of working class Americans. He will be in no position to take healthcare or safety net programs away from those who work their butts off to make this country prosper. Because of this Romney won't even dare.

Boy, talk about your wealth envy. I'm assuming Retread dug this stuff out of the third sub-basement in the Kremlin.

If Milton's elected, he'll be expected to turn the economy around - exactly what he did at Bain.

And one of the first things, If the Supremes don't do it first, will be to get rid of that "healthcare safety net program" nobody wants.

But Romney won't win. The next nine months his career at Bain will be gone over with a fine-tooth comb and he will become the face of what drove our country into the ditch.

No, the guy who's "the face of what drove our country into the ditch" is running for re-election and he's the one whose record doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Suck it Althouse Hillbillies!

Exactly what morons like Retread said after ZeroCare passed, assuming everybody was going to embrace it.

JayRetread: Screaming in all caps does not make any point other than the obvious that you are pulling words out of a hat on a topic with which you are unfamiliar.

You wrote, for instance: "In some cases Bain/Romney made hundreds of millions of dollars and other creditors were left holding the bag."

Name one case. Just one. And do you know the difference between an equity investor and a creditor? And how an equity investor can get his money out ahead of a creditor (leaving aside the government's singularly stupid Solyndra where equity was given rights superior to creditors)

Off topic, but I am getting tired about this jammer about "experience."It is not "experience" that counts, but whether the person considered actually accomplished something in the position(s) in which he has "experience."

(And Obama seems to have accomplished little or nothing in his previous "experience," even his getting elected to his various offices seem to have been arranged by "others.")

"Isn't this pretty much the business the President's great and good friend, Mr. Warren Buffett, is in?"

No, the exact opposite. Warren Buffett invests for the long term. He makes his money by building up companies and creating long term value. That is great capitalism at work.

Romney on the other hand is a corporate raider. Romney goes in and strips companies of their assets and fires productive workers. Romney walks away with hundreds of millions of dollars after a year or two while the company ends up bankrupt with its creditors holding the bag.

Garage: The topic of Solyndra has application in the sense that any investment failures by Bain took years to unravel despite the extensive due diligence that was done by Bain. Solyndra, on the other hand, is a recent example of a deal gone bad where there was no due diligence and where the deal cratered very fast. The president has breezily commented that all deals don't work out and he is correct in that regard. Perhaps the left should take that concept into account before bashing Bain and acting as though Solyndra didn't exist. But otherwise I appreciate your bringing it up.

Solyndra is perfectly topical. to give an update on Walker's criminal activities is not.

I'm continually stunned by the ignorance of so many conservatives who claim to support capitalism.

Like any other VC, Bain capital would have made way more money had the companies they invested in been successful.

Two years ago, a company I worked for almost got bought by a private equity firm. I did research and discovered that their track record is stellar. Among other things, they took a terrible company in my are, turned it around, combined it with two other companies and sold it at a profit, retaining an equity stake.

However, the president of my previous company decided against the buy out since he wanted to retain control. The end result, layoffs, scraping by and a company that missed a market opening due to the confusion of competitors and will very likely go bankrupt in the next three years. Regardless, they were paying poor salaries, the work conditions weren't so good. We stuck around because the product itself was kick ass and it's why the few people still there are still there.

When I hear people complaining that Bain capital "took" their job and pocketed money, I know I'm listening to someone who has no idea how the company was actually performing. I'll wager that even if that company went under, it lasted longer than had Bain (or any other equity firm) been there. Moreover, what was the employee doing? Making money. Jobs aren't an abstraction; you get paid for providing a service. Who's to say that employee was worth what he/she claims?

Yes private equity firms off all kinds can be aggressive, but the good ones are very good and very instrumental in giving us the cool world in which we live.

Jay Retread: "Romney goes in and strips companies of their assets and fires productive workers. Romney walks away with hundreds of millions of dollars after a year or two while the company ends up bankrupt with its creditors holding the bag."

Name one company in which Bain made hundreds of millions after a year or two etc. One.

PS: The business model of stripping assets which you describe is different from Bain's. You are cutting and pasting from the wrong diatribes. You do not know what you are talking about.

Jobs tend to be added when the population is growing and when people, in general, have positive outlooks about the future.

Bain and other private equity firms bought businesses and that allowed the business owners to liquidate that asset into cash etc. Bain was making a bet it could earn more than they paid for the company while the seller was betting he could do better by taking Bain's cash and selling his business.

That is really all is involved in a private equity deal. And yes, the PE firms use debt to buy the businesses just like we do when we buy a home. This not an evil thing.

Joe: You are absolutely correct. The left appears to confuse Bain's business model with that of a corporate raider. They cannot distinguish between the two forms of capitalist models.

Bain makes lots more money with successful deals than with those that go under. A pure raider is only interested in selling off the parts.

The left also seems to think that once fired a worker remains in permanent unemployment. It has been my experience that people move on, find other jobs, often better jobs. Or start their own companies.

No, the exact opposite. Warren Buffett invests for the long term. He makes his money by building up companies and creating long term value. That is great capitalism at work.

Warren Buffet runs a stock fund. That's it. He doesn't build companies, he simply buys their stock. In the process he creates excitement and when clever (which he often is) he then sells the stock for a nice gain.

Buffet has made awful investments and missed the boat on others. His "genius" is highly overrated; he mainly invests heavily in companies that have recurring income, such as Coca Cola. (He also has large holdings in Wells Fargo, so he made money off of bundled mortgages; is he evil?)

I asked you before about why you repeatedly insist upon proving that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. I never got a response. Don't want one now, but once again, you prove you don't know what you're talking about.

machine, it's very difficult to legally make "a lot of money" "running a company into the ground."

You can legally make money trying to turn a company around. You can also make money as a company goes down the toilet. I've worked for several such companies. Was it wrong for me to accept a salary as they went under?

Referring to my example above. Let's say a PE came in and helped my previous company, but the big competitor in that niche finally got their head on straight and decided to sell their product at a loss BEFORE my previous company had a chance to get a critical mass, my previous company would have gone under despite what the PE company could do. At best, they could restructure the company and go after a different niche, perhaps combining with some other companies that were hurting.

Buffett also buys firms that are in distress, but has good parts to them and small businesses when the owner dies and the heirs can't agree, chops them up and sells the good parts to evil corporations.

If I understand this correctly, it is a major difference between Bain Capital and Buffett that Bain actually does something constructive for the firms it invests in and tries to turn them around, while Buffett is strictly a financial scavenger.

The laws changed allowing companies to consider the entire fair-market value of the company, instead of only their "hard assets", in determining how much money was available to pay dividends...In at least some instances, companies acquired by Bain borrowed money in order to increase their dividend payments, ultimately leading to the collapse of what had been financially stable businesses.

Again, it's legal...and lots of firms do it...but I wouldn't brag about it...

I asked you before about why you repeatedly insist upon proving that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. I never got a response. Don't want one now, but once again, you prove you don't know what you're talking about.

No, you didn't, but it seems facts don't bother you. And I note you don't want to talk about venture capital, either.

machine said...

the economy is worse now than 2 years ago?

yea, right...keep fooling yourselves

That's why, if all the people who've run through their unemployment were included in the figure, the U3 would be 11%, not 8.5.

Machine: "I just want to point out that these firms can and do make a lot of money running some companies into the ground."

I do not think that Bain's strategy was the same as a corporate raider where leverage was used to acquire companies. Bain's financing was more operationally driven. I think that many people are conflating two different business models, plucking the bad pieces from one or the other to form a picture that is inaccurate. Bain was/is a private equity firm not a buyout firm.

I think that many here seem to miss the point of what Bain Capital did, and why it was good for the economy.

Resources, including both capital and labor, can either be efficiently allocated, or unefficiently allocated. Or, more realistically, the efficiency is a continuum.

Creating goods and services with fewer resources increases actual wealth in a country, because we can buy more with less.

The problem is that companies may, and often do, become less efficient as time goes on - or at least parts of companies can. This may involve paying too high of salaries, having too many employees, having outdated equipment, bad work rules, etc.

So, how do you address these increased inefficiencies? After all, the nation's wealth will be increased if fewer people and less capital is required to produce more goods and services. The somewhat longterm solution is to depend on the reality that as companies become increasingly inefficiently, their stock value will decline, along with their credit rating. In both cases, their cost of capital will increase as they become less profitable.

But that is itself, ultimately, inefficient, often taking years to reallocate resources as the companies slide into the dustbin of history. So, you have companies like Bain Capital, that take over companies, and try to streamline them and to run them more efficiently. Likely, that means that someone is going to get fired, because that is part of the inefficiencies that are dragging down the company. But, that may just be firing a bad CEO. Or, it may involve more, like shutting down divisions are unlikely to be turned around.

So, Bain Capital made money doing this sort of thing. Think of that money as their cut of or profit from the efficiencies that they introduced through their actions. So, first, they do create wealth - through those efficiencies. But, also, they tend to reinvest their profits in other companies, to do the same.

Jay Retread and others who don't understand PE/VC investing should read some primers rather than trusting the Daily Kos.

Bain is an excellent firm. I know them from an investor standpoint as they were one of the firms the foundation I worked on was invested in. A foundation of nobel prize winners that cures diseases.

PE and VC come with risk. Apple and most of silicon valley was built with VC money. With PE, you don't always know just how bad a company is until it's yours. Sometimes either you can't turn it around. Somtimes you need to sell the poor performing links of the business to save the whole. You often have to fire people because they are the reason the company is doing so poorly (or because they weren't able to adapt and that's why the business is failing). It's usually a force for good. Bain is one of those.

People like Retread who love public employees don't realize that those sainted people benefit from places like Bain, KKR, etc. I guarantee their pensions are invested in PE and VC (less so in the last 10 years) funds.

Hollywood and most news people and talking heads don't understand how it works. Corporate Raider is not a correct description. But there's a Staples in almost every city/county and it's because of Bain. Other visible reatail would be PF Changs is another firm, Empire Kosher Chicken, The Children's Place Stores, Dollar Tree, Forever 21. Then there are products, medical devices, CISCO, and on and on. ALL DRIVEN BY PRIVATE INVESTMENT FOR THE GOOD OF ALL.

MichaelObama and Romney will have ample time to explain their records. I don't get a sense Romney is capable of explaining Bain to average Americans though, like those in the film. Calling people envious is incredibly tone deaf.

Let me add that one of the things that has allowed our economy to flourish, in comparison at least with Europe, and, maybe, Japan, is that we have had much better ability to reallocate less economically allocated resources to more efficient uses. We are capable of carrying out "creative destruction" much more efficiently. That means that inefficient or legacy industries are cannibalized much more quickly and efficiently. Which, in turn means fewer resources spent inefficiently, and more national wealth.

A much better business model. Obama uses other people's money without asking them, pays his friends, and stiffs the investors, all without consequence to himself. And, he never runs out of money.

Well, he has asked Congress to raise the debt ceiling - again, and that door is closing, with our national debt now exceeding our gross national product, plus the Republicans in the House feeling cheated by the agreements they entered into for the last time it was raised.

Garage: I agree that it will be impossible to explain Bain to the average American. The public is guided by emotion and can't balance its own checkbook much less understand how private equity operates. The public believes, apparently, that every person ever fired remains fired and did not go on to other jobs. The public also believes that no person that is fired is replaced by a better more productive employee. The average American will be led by their emotions and I predict that by November the Bain matter will be less important to people than the sluggish economy. They will have heard Obama explain why it was a good idea not to reopen oil drilling in the Gulf, why the Canadian pipeline will not be built in the US, why gas prices remain high, why solar energy companies in the desert cannot operate because of conflicting regulations, and on and on. It will be very interesting. The American people's emotions will be more reflective of why things are not getting done versus an obscure investment firm's track record in the 1980s.

Successful businesses are successful because they provide something enough people want at a competitive price. Remember, they can not force us to pay for anything, like the government can. Unsuccessful businesses either can not compete on price or they can not attract enough customers to their product. The idea that you can be successful in a free market by being evil, is a lie. You have to have government help to do it that way. Private capital firms take unsuccessful businesses and turn them around, or they don't. No one is successful 100% of the time. 80 % is a pretty good record.

Romney on the other hand is a corporate raider. Romney goes in and strips companies of their assets and fires productive workers. Romney walks away with hundreds of millions of dollars after a year or two while the company ends up bankrupt with its creditors holding the bag.

But, an efficient employee in an inefficient company, division, or plant, is little different in the long run than the inefficient employee in the efficient company, etc. Indeed, in many cases, his efficiency may be little, if any, value to the company he works for.

If you want to see this dynamic, just look at government employees. Many of them are very diligent, hard working, and efficient. Yet, their agencies can be epically inefficient. Their hard work just goes to waste, despite their best intentions.

Reader Alex Blinder isn’t buying the whole narrative: “So let me get this straight. When Romney’s firm makes an investment and it turns out badly, he is a ‘vulture capitalist.’ When Obama uses taxpayer money to prop up political cronies and donors, and they fail, he is a benevolent capitalist who is ‘winning the future’.”

I have sold more than fifty percent of several companies to investors. It had nothing to do with inefficiencies and everything to do with the cost of capital, the availability of debt, the synergies offered by the acquiring company, the size of earn-ups offered to management and, of course, the price. Glib is not a sign of smart.

No - there are plenty of efficient companies that are closely held enough that they cannot be bought, and there are plenty of them that are inefficient.

To some extent, what we are talking about here is effective control of a company, which may or may not be 51% stock ownership. For example, the NYT has a little bit of voting stock, owned primarily by the Sulzberger family, and an awful lot more non-voting stock. But, because of this close control, the company can continue to slide into obscurity, without a realistic chance at being turned around by outside companies like Bain Capital. Not completely though, because of the big amount of cash they got from that Mexican billionaire.

Bender: Bain does not have to be understood. Romney only has to keep the focus on the unbuilt pipeline, on the shuttered drilling in the Gulf, about the scores of regulations that inhibit hiring. Bain will be well worn out by the summer, people will be sick of talking about it. The true haters of the 1% are not in play. The rest understand that on balance Bain was/is not a bad thing. People will know that Solyandra failed and the Olympics succeeded. They will hear of a guy's full history, they will see his friends over a long period, they will know about the service work he did and his commitment to his religion and his family. There will be a number of things to discuss that will be uncomfortable for our president but will show Romney the better man.

Bender: All things being equal what you write is true. With one small problem. Obama is so loathsome that the public clicks him off when he comes on screen. His numbers go up when he goes away but he cannot go away during an election year.

Obama is a one term guy. Our country is not going for that trick twice. Wait and see. The press won't protect him the way it did the last time.

Obama shuttered the drilling for an extended period and defied court orders to reopen. The drilling is now open and there will be more rigs in the Gulf this year than in the past. But his impossibly lame response to the BP spill will be fun to talk about this year. Any claim of "jobs growth" in the Gulf region will be mocked since it will take a while to catch up with their losses. Mostly force majeur but lots to do with the incompetent response from the administration.

Hmm, Mitt has a lot of experince firing people. Now if he promises to fire 50% of the non essential federal workforce, programs and agencies and put the screws to the states and local governments to do the same or lose federal matching funds, grants and aid I'll vote for him in a hearbeat.